Science is freaking awesome and has provided humans a method of thinking that has helped us conquer our ignorance and superstition and it has taken us from the darkness of the night to the threshold of the stars.
But the science of physics ran into a public relations problem. It is the problem that physics has of actually being able to see an atom. The problem is we can’t directly observe sub atomic particles no matter the magnification. Sight depends on the reflection of light off of an object and when we get to atomic sizes it is no longer possible to observe using conventional techniques. Instead we have to produce instruments and testing that provides evidence of the existence of atoms and smaller particles based on the reactions we can observe.
This is not so much a big deal to those who realize science seeks further mystery no matter how many mysteries it solves. It’s only through learning the answer to mysteries that higher order mysteries are revealed. Through this objectivity we can reconcile the subjective world around us into a logical framework we all can rely on as reality. This keeps us humans from acting insane by believing in things like divine retribution for eating pork or being homosexual.
But now this seems to be where religion is stepping in to claim that science cannot produce real evidence since the evidence it can produce becomes subjective. Religion has never favored science since it cannot provide responses to subjective questions like what is the meaning of life or how can you live in truth.
Religion also judges science to be failing since it cannot provide objective evidence of the natural world when it reaches the atomic level.
This claim is questioned by religion when physical properties reach limits where human physical senses can no longer interact without assistance from device that humans must create in order to measure. How can we know that the instrument is applicable to universal constants if we are designing them arbitrarily based on the physical senses we have.
For example, we cannot naturally see in radio frequencies so we have to create devices that can see them and display a representation to us. We are not visibly seeing the radio waves but we have evidence of their existence. But this evidence can be seen as subjective as we could produce an instrument that is bias and produces the response to validate the theory. I don’t agree with this thinking I’m only explaining it as it was explained to me by believers.
So religion questions this objectivity since science relies on subjective mechanisms such as the increments created to measure, the materials that construct the instrument, and the interpretation of the resulting data. All of it can be called into question since it is only humans applying labels to self created facts and there is no real physical “proof”. This is a perceptual issue that religious people have now concerning the trustworthiness of science. The point being is they don’t.
But what religion calls weakness in science is actually it’s strength and that strength is skepticism. When science claims are called into question they must by the very foundational precepts of science be investigated because science is about truth no matter the result. Even if it overturns it’s own credibility.
Until a religion can embrace both skepticism and criticism of itself in the same manner as science, it cannot be relied on an authoritative source for anything other than a collection of imaginary parables and ethical metaphors.
Unfortunately even those are extremely outdated.